Constitution of India, Article 226 — Writ of Mandamus — Dismissed — Claim for Reinstatement After 27 Years — Petitioner’s Delay and Laches in Asserting Rights — Held: Belated and Stale Claims Cannot Be Revived by Continuous Representations — (Para 12, 14, 16)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Land Acquisition — Project Affected Person (PAP) — Claim for Employment — Denial of Appointment — Government Resolution Not Followed — Court Declined to Interfere Due to Delay — (Para 10, 19)

Indian Limitation Act, 1963 — Period of Limitation — Cause of Action — Claim Barred by Limitation — Cause of Action Arose in 1997 and 2002 — Legal Notice in 2024 Cannot Revive Stale Claim — (Para 15)

The High Court dismissed the petition on grounds of delay and laches, holding that the petitioner’s claim was stale and the repeated representations could not extend the limitation period. (Para 21, 22)

Subjects: Delay — Laches — Stale Claim — Limitation — Writ of Mandamus — Reinstatement — Project Affected Person — Government Resolution — Public Irrigation Scheme — Land Acquisition

Nature of the Litigation: The case was a service-related dispute where the petitioner sought reinstatement and employment benefits, claiming priority status as a Project Affected Person (PAP) due to his family’s land acquisition for a public irrigation project.

Who Asked the Court and for What Remedy: The petitioner, Shri Uday Laxman Pawar, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to set aside the letters and resolutions denying his employment and to order his reinstatement from 1993 as a Grade III employee.

Reason for Filing the Case: The petitioner claimed that his right to employment under the PAP scheme was denied despite being on the official waiting list and possessing a valid PAP certificate.

What Had Already Been Decided Until Now: The petitioner’s employment was terminated in May 1993, and his application for reinstatement was rejected by letters dated 05.04.1997 and 07.11.2002. Repeated representations made between 2021 and 2024 did not yield any favorable response.

Issues: Whether the petitioner’s claim for reinstatement was barred by delay and laches.

Submissions/Arguments:

• State (Respondents): Argued that the petition was time-barred as the cause of action arose in 1997 and 2002, and the legal notice in 2024 could not revive a stale claim. (Para 6, 7)

• Petitioner: Contended that the cause of action was continuous and that his rights under the PAP scheme were being continuously violated. (Para 8)

Ratio:

• Stale Claims: Courts should not entertain service-related claims filed after an inordinate delay without any reasonable explanation. (Para 12, 14)

• Continuous Representations: Mere submission of repeated representations does not revive a dead or time-barred claim. (Para 15, 16)

• Public Interest: Entertaining such delayed claims could disturb settled rights and create undue burdens on public authorities. (Para 18)